R v Woodham (No 2) - [2023] NSWSC 1345

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345
Hearing dates: 06 November 2023
Date of orders: 06 November 2023
Decision date: 08 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Weinstein J
Decision:
Verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible entered pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020

Catchwords:
CRIME – murder – defence of mental health impairment – where parties agree defence available – court satisfied that evidence satisfies defence established – offence proven but the accused not criminally responsible

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020

Cases Cited:
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
R v Eleter [2023] NSWSC 931
R v Siemek (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293
R v Woodham [2022] NSWSC 1154

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Louis Woodham (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Keay (Crown)
S Fraser (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Jamieson Criminal Law (Accused)

File Number(s): 2021/169252
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The accused, Louis Woodham, stands charged with the murder of Denise Brameld contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. On 29 August 2022, Hamill J conducted a fitness hearing and on 30 August 2022 found that Mr Woodham was unfit to be tried pursuant to s 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (the Act), and that he may become fit to be tried within 12 months pursuant to s 47(1)(a) of the Act. His Honour referred the accused to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) pursuant to s 49(1) of the Act, and remanded him in custody pursuant to s 47(2)(d) of the Act: see R v Woodham [2022] NSWSC 1154. On 3 January 2023, the MHRT determined that Mr Woodham was not fit to be tried for the offence for which he was found unfit and would not become fit to be tried within 12 months after Hamill J’s finding of 30 August 2022. The matter was therefore listed for special hearing.
The accused pleaded not guilty by reason of mental health impairment. The Crown Prosecutor and the accused’s counsel advised the Court of their agreement, for the purpose of s 31 of the Act, that the proposed evidence established a defence of mental health impairment pursuant to s 28 of the Act.
I therefore conducted a special hearing on 6 November 2023 to determine whether or not the evidence established a defence of mental health impairment. I was so satisfied and entered a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible pursuant to s 31 of the Act. I then made further orders and directions.
I am grateful to Ms Keay who appeared on behalf of the Crown, and to Mr Fraser who appeared on behalf of the accused, for the collaborative manner in which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Woodham (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1345
Decision Date: 08 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the accused, Woodham, was charged with the murder of an individual. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the central issue revolved around whether the accused could rely on the defence of mental health impairment. Both parties acknowledged the availability of the defence, and the court had to determine if the evidence presented met the criteria for the defence and if the accused could be found not criminally responsible despite the offence being proven.

The court examined whether the accused's mental health impairment was sufficient to negate criminal responsibility. The legal issue was whether the accused's condition at the time of the offence was such that it substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature and quality of their act or to know that it was wrong. The court considered expert psychiatric evidence and the circumstances of the offence. Ultimately, the court was satisfied that the evidence established the defence and found that, while the offence was proven, the accused was not criminally responsible due to their mental health impairment.

The Supreme Court of Queensland held that the defence of mental health impairment was applicable. It ruled that the accused was not criminally responsible for the offence of murder. The court's decision was based on the substantial impairment of the accused's mental functions at the time of the offence, which negated their criminal responsibility. The court's ruling was definitive in finding the accused not criminally responsible, thereby providing a just outcome in the circumstances.

Orders